Boastful and vain, self-absorbed, selfish and controlling: these are how the structural, operational, motivational and methodological drivers of brand management manifest themselves in brands’ behaviours. Yet at the same time, the origins and value of brands lie deep in the matching and connecting win–wins we discussed earlier. Both are true. Both are reflec- tions of the same underlying reality. That is why the public has such a love/hate relationship with brands – why brands are both so universally
popular and reviled, so universally sought after yet kept at arm’s length and dismissed as ‘mere marketing ploys’, so universally trusted yet treated with suspicion.
Looking at the popularity, desire and trust that brands manage to generate, marketers routinely hope and believe that if only they could do a little more, better marketing – by building even stronger brands – the positives will eventually crowd out the negatives. But as we’ve seen the reality is quite different. More, better marketing is the source of both the positive and the negative effects. More, better marketing is part of the problem, not part of the solution. But the ideology of branding helps obscure this fact.
Like all truly successful ideologies, branding unites two divergent trends behind the same banner: of brands as vehicles of value (as former Unilever chairman Sir Michael Perry described them) and brands as vehicles of corporate narcissism. Both sides are convinced ‘we must do everything we can to build our brands’. But they mean completely opposite things. Both sides coexist in the same companies and in the same individuals.
But neither aspect of this Jekyll and Hyde character is particularly new. It’s been around since marketing was first invented. So why draw attention to it now?
The answer is, all is forgiven as long as branding remains a win–win process. If brands still stand for trustable sources of unique and superior value, and the process of branding helps both sides achieve better matching and connecting at lower cost, then the irritations and limitations of brand narcissism are a small price to pay. Trouble is, the opposite dynamic is prevailing. Brand narcissism is increasing precisely because the win–wins that underpin branding are declining. As the wins for consumers diminish, consumer enthusiasm and loyalty for brands decline. Marketing becomes ‘less effective’. As a result companies find themselves under increasing pressure to regain the market share, margin and other benefits their brands once brought – and the narcissistic ‘What’s in it for me?’ mentality moves centre-stage.
Increasing brand narcissism, then, is a product of declining win–wins, not just a cause. Why should this be? The causes of diminishing win–wins are familiar, so we’ll allude to them only very quickly:
ᔡ Market maturity. Brands originally helped energize a virtuous spiral where increased demand fed through to improving economies of scale, 48 I Beyond Branding
to lower unit costs, to better value. As markets mature and overcapacity kicks in, however, increased investment in productive capacity generates more cost than benefit. Companies’ ability to offer improving value diminishes. The virtuous value spiral begins to turn vicious. ᔡ Product parity. Competition is all about not letting your competitor
get ahead, so whenever a successful innovation is introduced it is quickly copied. This makes sustainable differentiation on the basis of ‘demonstrable product superiority’ ever more difficult and under- mines the original role of brands as beacons of unique, superior value. As a result many companies have now begun to argue that branding itself is the source of differentiation. Yet, as soon as the brand’s job is to hide sameness rather than express and communicate difference the win for the consumer evaporates. This destroys trust, rather than building it.
ᔡ Information overload. When marketing first started out, media markets were immature. In today’s world of proliferating, fragmenting media, consumers are bombarded with selling messages. As a result, the beacon benefits of advertising – to help consumers identify and seek the sources of value they want – are turning into a cost and a chore instead: of sifting through information clutter.
ᔡ Innoflation. In their increasingly desperate attempts to find a source of differentation, companies are increasingly throwing ersatz innovations at the market: not real value breakthroughs, but excuses for being able to claim ‘new, improved’. Endless line extensions, gimmicky features, product variants and so on make the job of searching for the sources of genuine value that are right for me ever more tiresome. They complexify rather than simplify.
Brands generate win–wins by acting as trusted beacons of superior value. Separately and together, these developments are working to undermine each element: trust, the brand’s beacon role and its ability to guarantee superior value. Crucially, however, each of these developments is beyond the control or influence of individual marketers and companies. They are systemic effects: the net result of many individual decisions by people who feel ‘just compelled’ to act in certain ways.
It’s this that makes brand narcissism so toxic. The win–wins that underpin traditional brands are under threat anyway. Narcissism threatens to destroy them. So what can we do about it?